Slides ICKM 2013 Paper 164.Pptx

8/11/2019 Slides ICKM 2013 Paper 164.Pptx

1/15

1

11

Strategic Uncertainty, Competitive

Intelligence Practices and Firm Performance

by

Ching Seng Yap, Md Zabid Abdul Rashid, & Dewi Amat Sapuan

2 November 2013 @ 10.30 a.m.

ICKM 2013: International Conference on

Knowledge Management @ Montreal, Canada

22

Outline of the Presentation

1. Introduction

2.

Review of the Literature3. Research Hypotheses

4. Methods

5. Results and Discussion

6. Implications and Conclusion




2/15

2

33

1. Introduction

o Businesses compete in an increasingly competitive

marketplace:!

Globalisation;

! ICTs advancement;

! Turbulent business environments.

o Emergence of competitive intelligence (CI) in

business field as one of the management tools.

o The roles of CI in strategic management.

o Best practitioners: Motorola, IBM, Xerox, EastmanKodak, Lexis-Nexis, Procter & Gamble.



44

o Definition of CI

!

A method for identifying the intelligence requirement,systematically collecting relevant information on

competitors, and processing the information into actionable

knowledge (Jaworski & Wee, 1992).

! Information about the present and future behaviour of

competitors, suppliers, customers, technologies,

government, market and general business environment

(Vedder & Guynes, 2000).

1. Introduction, cont.




3/15

3

55

o Problem Statement!

Businesses today face an increasingly competitive globalmarket;

! Most studies on CI are largely descriptive in nature(Saayman et al., 2008);

! Few academic studies have examined empirically therelationship between the antecedents and consequences ofCI (Attaway, 1999);

! The current evidence of the value and impact of CI is

anecdotal or consists of indirect assessment (McGonagle& Vella, 2002; Saayman et al., 2008).




66

o Research Objectives

"

Identify the strategic role of competitive intelligence."

Examine the links between strategic uncertainty and firm

performance.

"

Examine the mediating effect of competitive intelligence

practices on the relationship between strategic uncertainty

and firm performance.





4/15

4

77

2. Review of the Literature

o Theoretical Perspective

1. Contingency Theory emphasises the best fit or matchbetween internal functions and organisational

environments in order to achieve outstanding performance

(Burns & Stalker, 1961; Cyert & March, 1963; Lawrence

& Lorsch, 1967; Thompson, 1967).

2. Resource-based Theory views resources such as

distinctive competencies and dynamic capabilities which

may yield sustainable competitive advantage and hence

superior performance for the organisation (Barney, 1991;

Peteraf, 1993; Wernerfelt, 1984).



88

2. Review of the Literature, cont.o

Descriptive Studies1. Asia China (Tao & Prescott, 2000, Japan (Sugasawa, 2004),

Korea (Kim & Kim, 2004), India (Adidam et al., 2012).2. Europe UK (Wright et al., 2004), Russia (Ignatov, 2004),

France (Salles, 2006), Germany (Michaeli, 2004), Spain(Millan & Comai, 2004), Sweden (Hedin, 2004), Finland(Hirvensalo, 2004; Pirttimki, 2007), Greece (Priporas et al.,2005).

3. North America USA (Prescott & Smith, 1989; Ghoshal &Westney, 1991; Prescott & Bhardwaj, 1995; Vedder et al.,1999; Lackman et al., 2000), Canada (Calof & Brouard, 2004).

4. Africa South Africa (Muller, 1999; Du Toit, 2003; Viviers &Muller, 2004; Viviers et al., 2005).




5/15

5

99

2. Review of the Literature, cont.

o Empirical Studies

#

Relationship between Strategic Uncertainty and CI(Ebrahimi, 2000; Lozada & Calantone, 1996; McGee &

Sawyer, 2003).

# Relationship between CI and Firm Performance (Daft et

al, 1988; Analoui & Karami, 2002; Zahra et al., 2002;

Qiu, 2008).



1010

3. Research Hypotheses

H1: The greater theperceived strategic uncertainty, the higher

the level of competitive intelligence practices, specifically

the higher amount of competitive intelligence is acquired

and the greater extent of competitive intelligence is usedin

strategic decision making.

H2: The higher the level of competitive intelligence

practices, the higher the level offirm performance.

H3: Competitive intelligence positively mediates the

relationship between perceived strategic uncertainty and

firm performance.




6/15

6

1111

4. Methods

o Research Design

!

Cross-sectional study with organisation as the unit ofanalysis.

! Data Collection Method Mail Questionnaire Survey.

o Population & Sampling Procedures

! Population All businesses with CI Practices in Malaysia.

! Sampling Frame All the companies listed on Bursa

Malaysia (Main Board, Second Board & MESDAQ).

! A total of 900 companies, excluding subsidiary and holding

companies.



1212

4. Methods, cont.o

Variables & Measurement

1. Strategic role of CI (Ghoshal & Westney, 1991; Prescott& Smith, 1989)! Supporting strategic decision making; identifying early warning and

blind spots; performing industrial benchmarking; supporting strategic

planning and implementation, supporting competitor assessment and

tracking, and performing counterintelligence

# Using 5-point importance scale.

2. CI Practices

! CI Acquisition (10 types of CI) (Aguilar, 1967; Choo, 1993).

!

CI Use (on 11 strategic decisions) (Mintzberg et al., 1976; Hickson et

al., 1986).

# Using 5-point importance and frequency scale.ICKM 2013: International Conference on



7/15

7

1313

4. Methods, cont.o

Variables & Measurement, cont.

3. Perceived Strategic Uncertainty (Duncan, 1972; Daft et

al., 1988)

! Strategic importance (5-point importance scale).

! Complexity (5-point high-low scale)

! Variability (5-point high-low scale)

4. Firm Performance (Govindarajan, 1984; Dess &

Robinson, 1984).

!

3 dimensions: Accounting, Market, Organisational Learning.

# Using 5-point importance and performance scale.


Knowledge Management @ Montreal, Canada1414

4. Methods, cont.o

Data Analysis Techniques

! Descriptive Analysis, Partial Least Square, and Linear

Regression Analysis.

o Pilot Test

! Conducted on 20 managers and executives.

! To test the reliability of the instrument.

! To obtain preliminary outcome.




8/15

8

1515

5. Results and Discussiono

Response Rate! Of 900 companies, 123 companies returned usable

questionnaires.

! Response rate 14%.

o Representativeness of the Sample!

Compare sample with population (Kerlinger & Lee, 2000).

! Differences range 6% in industry sector.

o Nonresponse Bias! Wave analysis (Rogelberg & Stanton, 2007).

!No significant difference between early and late respondents.



1616

5. Results and Discussion, cont.o

Sample Characteristics (n=123)



!"#$% '( )"*+$% ,-"."/0%.1201/2 345'678

9.%:;%4/< =%./%40">%!"#$%&'(

,?42;*%. +.?@;/02

A4@;20.1"$ +.?@;/02

,?420.;/01?4

!."@14>B)%.C1/%2

914"4/%

!%/-4?$?> :(=7 7

0+*?%.4.+< 7'(@A >(B9 9

C2+-+*42 7B(>B >(DA B

E$+#"$ 79(>7 >(DD '

!%2F-+$+G42"$ 79(7: >('9 :

H%G,$".+(>' '(G' G

M%AJ%A ",B "9UC:2:+:-, 46(G'


11/15

11

2121


Descriptive Analysis, cont.

! Firm Performance by Rank



!"#$% '( )*+, -%+./+,"01% 234567

"#$%#&'( ) *+ ,#-.

-+/.*8 9+/:8; 3


12/15

12

2323


Hypothesis 3: Mediating effect of CI



Figure 1 Simple model.

PerceivedStrategic

Uncertainty

0.197 **Firm

Performance

Figure 2 Full model.

0.042

Note:**Path coefficient is significant atp< 0.01.

Sobel Z = 2.807**

PerceivedStrategic

Uncertainty

Firm

Performance

CompetitiveIntelligence

Practices0.404**0.381**

2424


Hypothesis 3: Mediating effect of CI, cont.

! Supported: Full mediation effect of CI



!"#$% '( !%)*+,- *.% /%0+"*+,- 122%3* 42 5467%*+*+8% 9,*%$$+-%,3% :;"3*+3%):;%0+3*4; ! )(%( # $ %& '

( !4*"$ '

(

:%;3%+8%0 B' A(ACD C(>E>FF >'(AG' H> I >JAK A(>JL A(>JL

/40%$ J

5467%*+*+8% 9,*%$$+-%,3% :;"3*+3%) A(ED> A(>EJ J(DD'F A(>'B

:%;3%+8%0 DJ J(DA'FF

)*#+,M%7%,0%,* 8";+"#$% +) 2+;6 7%;24;6",3%N !O P,)*",0";0+Q%0 34%22+3+%,*N )(%( O )*",0";0 %;;4;N F- R A(AL( FF- R A(A>(


13/15

13

2525

6. Implications and Conclusiono

Theoretical Implications

! The findings confirm and extend previous findings

suggesting that competitive intelligence significantly

related to firm performance

! Competitive intelligence fully mediates the relationship

between strategic uncertainty and firm performance



2626

6. Implications and Conclusion, cont.o

Implications for Practitioners

! Managers should initiate and organise CI activities in their

organization.

! Managers are required to prioritise on sectors that are

perceived to be of strategic importance to organisations,

particularly, customer, competitor, economic and

technological sectors.

! Managers must ensure that CI systems will be able to

provide intelligence to the right people at the right time so

that it will be utilised in strategic decision making.




14/15

14

2727

6. Implications and Conclusion, cont.

o Limitations of the Study!

Covered only two processes of CI cycle which areacquisition and strategic use.

! About 40% of the sample consists of functional managers.

!No illustration of specific decision making scenario in the

questionnaire.

! Mediation studies imply causation.



2828

6. Implications and Conclusion, cont.o

Recommendations for Future Research

! To capture the complete domain of competitive intelligence

practices, for instance, dissemination and sharing of CI.

! To focus on specific functional managers in a specific

industry sector.

! To adopt a scenario-based instrumentation when collecting

responses relating to strategic decision making activities.

! To conduct longitudinal studies for testing mediation

effect.




15/15

15

29

~Thank you~

Q & ASession



Documents

Slides ICKM 2013 Paper 164.Pptx